It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Demolition crews are dumb; they didn't learn jack from 9/11

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by fm258
Just think how difficult and amazing it would be for a tall building (like the WTC) could catch fire, burn for a few minutes UNEVENLY then spontaeneously collapse perfectly straight down into its own 'footprint'.

That would be a 1 in a 1,000,000 thing to see!! I wonder if til the end of eternity we will ever see something happen like that.



Err....the WTC burned for hours...not minutes... There were planes which crashed into them, which damaged and weakened the structure, the combined weight, plus the hours of jet fuel burning would have been more than enough to weaken even more the structure, once the collapse started, there was no way to stopping it because the strength of the floor below the top parts of the building that started collapsing did not have enough strength to stop the momentum of the fallen mass of debris.

BTW, skyscrappers are build in such a manner that they do collapse straight down. A skyscrapper is not a tree which does fall to a side...




posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 09:21 PM
link   
Uh...

I say them saying the buildings "would have remained standing" means the plane impacts themselves weren't the deciding factor. They say the deciding factor was the flames. If the plane impacts were such a big factor, why didn't they fall much sooner than they did, and why did the building hit last fall first?


Anyway, the plane impact story really takes a blow when you consider WTC 7. NO PLANE IMPACT here! And, by your own photo, it is laughable to believe that it would have fallen straight down, if at all. Someone posted here that some of the other WTC buildings were on fire AND were damaged, but remained standing.
(ironically, this person seemed to support the official story
)

Alienanderson, you are still dead on, homey. ShadowXIX seems to miss the sarcastic tone of this thread.



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
Uh...

I say them saying the buildings "would have remained standing" means the plane impacts themselves weren't the deciding factor.


It was not, we all know the planes hitting the towers were not the only reason why the towers fell, noone has ever said that. However the impacts did weakened the structures, adding to that the hours that the jet fuel and other burning material was on fire was enough to weaken the structure to the point that it collapsed completly.

A steel structure doesn't have to melt, as some people have claimed in the past, for the structure to weaken and buckle. An uneven fire burning for hours in such a structure after being hit by a plane, which exploded sending a shockwave which also would have weakened the structure even further, adding the tons of weight from the plane, plus the falling debris from the top floors on the bottom floors, they all added up to the collapse of WTC1 & 2. WTC7 was hit in one side by the falling debris from one of the towers, I forget which one was it now, plus it also received two shockwaves from the explosions of both WTC1 & WTC2, the explosions sent burning fuel and debris into WTC7, which after hours of burning crashed down.





Originally posted by truthseeka
They say the deciding factor was the flames. If the plane impacts were such a big factor, why didn't they fall much sooner than they did, and why did the building hit last fall first?


if you would have done a bit more research you would have found out that the second tower which was hit was hit lower than the first one. Meaning that there was more weight on the weakened floors of the second structure, which made it fall first, after burning also for hours.





Originally posted by truthseeka
Anyway, the plane impact story really takes a blow when you consider WTC 7. NO PLANE IMPACT here! And, by your own photo, it is laughable to believe that it would have fallen straight down, if at all. Someone posted here that some of the other WTC buildings were on fire AND were damaged, but remained standing.
(ironically, this person seemed to support the official story
)


Whose photo are you talking about?

All buildings have different structures and are built differently, depending on the size and the age of the building.

It is a lot harder for a building that is smaller to fall from fire alone, even thou it does happen, than a large building which is weakened by shockwaves from explosions, by fires, and by part of the building having collapsed from the planes, as in the caqse of WTC1 & 2, or hit by tons of debris as WTC7 was hit in one side.


[edit on 31-3-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
But why?

Why do they continue to do demolitions old style when they could just set buildings on fire? Why didn't they realize that buildings could be demolished from mere fires BEFORE they began working on demo techniques back in the day?

Why, why, why?


.....WTC1 and WTC2 did not fall just from a fire. Buildings nowadays have fireproofing, which in the case of the WTC was blown out by the planes, and by the shockwaves, at least the fireproofing from the top floors, once the top floors started collapsing, the falling mass of debris built enough momentum to completly collapse the whole structure.



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 09:41 PM
link   
When the hell has a building ever fallen from fire ALONE before or after 9/11?

And, I mean steel building, not wooden building.



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 09:47 PM
link   
Truthseeka I know the official story is a lie. You know it is a lie. I do not understand people who defend it. Who are these people????? Peace be with you brother.



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 08:17 AM
link   
truthseeka - sorry if I have hijacked your thread in any way

ShadowXIX - I apologise for being rude to you yesterday. I did not come to ATS to make enemies and I hope you accept my apology. I have already been warned by ATS staff and I won't be repeating my actions. I do not have enough posts yet to U2U, hence my public apology here.

I have just been watching '911 Eyewitness' and the nature of the collapse of WTC7 is just, well, unbelievable. I did not realise that it actually collapses faster than gravity should allow, pointing towards freefall in a vacuum caused by an implosion (i.e. explosive charges).
Does anyone know if this has been debunked, and if so, where can I find accurate information on the speed of collapse?



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 08:43 AM
link   
1 post and im done with this thread.

Please, PLEASE stop saying that no building in history has collapsed onto its own footprint due solely to fire.

You are being VERY VERY ignorant in this statement. 2 falsities here.

One - Not true that no building has never collapsed solely die to fire. All you have to do is search google, it seems you have chosen not to.

Two - I seem to remember a 767 crashing into both towers, filled with jet fuel, and a wind load of 20% capacity on the towers that day. So please, why do you keep saying solely fires.

I find it extrememly ignorant also that people seem to think that the method of collapse should have been a tipping over fashion. This is a complete misunderstanding of physics, mechanics etc.

Anyways, my only post because I know exactly where the responses are going.

Train



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 09:04 AM
link   
BigTrain

You are 100% correct - before WC7 collapsed there were steel structured buildings that fell into their own footprint without officially being brought down in a controlled demolition

To be exact, there have been two

And they both occured that morning... for the first time in history

I also agree that many buildings have collapsed soley due to fire - but they tend to made of wood or similar materials

I respect your right to have your own opinion.

If you want to believe the official story, that's good, but at the moment I don't - it is just so full of holes and the actions of the Bush admin since have just been so, so dodgy

To anyone else still reading:

The crimes that occured that day should have warranted the most thorough investigation the world has ever seen - instead we have witnessed a crime scene destroyed (the hasty removal of the debris) and explanations that were expounded in the first few weeks and have been doggedly stuck to since, despite contrary evidence and eyewitness statements. Why is this? Why did Bush try to block a 9-11 commission? What are they trying to hide?

[edit on 1/4/2006 by alienanderson]

[edit on 1/4/2006 by alienanderson]



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 12:59 PM
link   
I'm thinking of the structural build of a 767,hitting those towersWould almost be like a bird hitting the side of a wall,I don't even think that the impact would even make the buildings sway,much less cause any structural damage outside of breaking windows,I can see fire destroying the interior of buildings,but would have no effect on the structural steel,anyone with knowledge of welding could see that,as for 2 planes taking down Twin Towers,I say impossible



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 01:16 PM
link   
Exactly Oldtimer2 - from what I have read and seen, the towers were overengineered to withstand a lot more abuse than they took on that fateful day.

Did you know that a plane once hit the Empire State Building in thick fog? Still standing today as far as I know (maybe because it didn't have a $3
billion insurance policy on it!)



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 01:17 PM
link   
The planes really didn't cause much structural damage. The NIST and FEMA reports even support this.

Less than 15% of the perimeter columns in either tower were knocked out, and though no one went in to check, probably a lesser amount of core damage. The planes would've been pretty ripped apart by the time they reached the much-thicker core columns.

There's a paper here that takes data from NIST to calculate how many column failures, on average, it would take for a given floor within the damaged region to fail, given safety factor ratings released by NIST. It comes out being about 75% of the columns to be lost before a single floor will fail.

That means the initial >15% from impact damage, and then another



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 01:26 PM
link   
So with all this information, I am still amazed that people cling to the official line

Actually, sometimes I wish I could believe it. They say ignorance is bliss



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by alienanderson


ShadowXIX - I apologise for being rude to you yesterday. I did not come to ATS to make enemies and I hope you accept my apology. I have already been warned by ATS staff and I won't be repeating my actions. I do not have enough posts yet to U2U, hence my public apology here.



No problem alienanderson, I understand this is a very heated issue that brings out strong feelings in people.


You have voted alienanderson for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two votes for this month.


[edit on 1-4-2006 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 02:47 PM
link   
Not only was the WTC brought down with explosives, it was probably built with the intention of it being destroyed at some point. Built as a symbol of the U.S. economic might, it just seems to have been a target of inevitability.



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 02:53 PM
link   
Okay, so one building managed to fall within its footprint due to fire.

ONE building. Out of countless others which have caused damage to surrounding areas when brought down without precision explosives.

Hardly a justification to change demolition practices which have undergone unimaginable hours of research and design.

They are not morons for using what is tested and true.

Setting fire to a building to bring it down, simply because it happened to work once... that would be the work of morons.



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by alienanderson

To anyone else still reading:

The crimes that occured that day should have warranted the most thorough investigation the world has ever seen - instead we have witnessed a crime scene destroyed (the hasty removal of the debris) and explanations that were expounded in the first few weeks and have been doggedly stuck to since, despite contrary evidence and eyewitness statements. Why is this? Why did Bush try to block a 9-11 commission? What are they trying to hide?

[edit on 1/4/2006 by alienanderson]

[edit on 1/4/2006 by alienanderson]


THAT'S what I'm talking about, alien!

I made the analogy of OJ's trial. One reason he got off was that the po pos screwed up the DNA evidence. Now imagine what kind of case it would have been if they had SOLD the DNA evidence! Not only sold, but put GPS trackers on it as it was being carted away from the scene.

For the life of me, I cannot understand why people still believe the official lie. To each his own, but...whatever.



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnsky
Okay, so one building managed to fall within its footprint due to fire.

ONE building. Out of countless others which have caused damage to surrounding areas when brought down without precision explosives.

Hardly a justification to change demolition practices which have undergone unimaginable hours of research and design.

They are not morons for using what is tested and true.

Setting fire to a building to bring it down, simply because it happened to work once... that would be the work of morons.


You obviously missed the sarcasm as well.

But, don't you think this should have been one of the most thorough criminal investigations in the history of the US? For this being the biggest terror attack in US history, as well as, by your own admission, the only time in history that a steel building has collapsed due to fire? But whatever, I guess it's comforting to believe those who UNDENIABLY lie straight to your face.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join